Analyst Chris Miller notes that AMD's challenge extends beyond competing with Nvidia. Hyperscalers like Google, Meta, and Microsoft are developing potent in-house ASICs (e.g., Google's TPUs), creating a crowded market and reducing AMD's addressable share.

Related Insights

Meta is deprioritizing its custom silicon program, opting for large orders of AMD's chips. This reflects a broader trend among hyperscalers: the urgent need for massive, immediate compute power is outweighing the long-term strategic goal of self-sufficiency and avoiding the "Nvidia tax."

The competitive landscape for AI chips is not a crowded field but a battle between two primary forces: NVIDIA’s integrated system (hardware, software, networking) and Google's TPU. Other players like AMD and Broadcom are effectively a combined secondary challenger offering an open alternative.

Tech giants often initiate custom chip projects not with the primary goal of mass deployment, but to create negotiating power against incumbents like NVIDIA. The threat of a viable alternative is enough to secure better pricing and allocation, making the R&D cost a strategic investment.

Google successfully trained its top model, Gemini 3 Pro, on its own TPUs, proving a viable alternative to NVIDIA's chips. However, because Google doesn't sell these TPUs, NVIDIA retains its monopoly pricing power over every other company in the market.

For a hyperscaler, the main benefit of designing a custom AI chip isn't necessarily superior performance, but gaining control. It allows them to escape the supply allocations dictated by NVIDIA and chart their own course, even if their chip is slightly less performant or more expensive to deploy.

Google training its top model, Gemini 3 Pro, on its own TPUs demonstrates a viable alternative to NVIDIA's chips. However, because Google does not sell its TPUs, NVIDIA remains the only seller for every other company, effectively maintaining monopoly pricing power over the rest of the market.

Even if Google's TPU doesn't win significant market share, its existence as a viable alternative gives large customers like OpenAI critical leverage. The mere threat of switching to TPUs forces NVIDIA to offer more favorable terms, such as discounts or strategic equity investments, effectively capping its pricing power.

The massive profits NVIDIA earns from its near-monopoly in AI chips act as the primary incentive for its own competition. Tech giants and automakers are now developing their own chips in response, showing how extreme profitability in tech inevitably funds new rivals.

Specialized chips (ASICs) like Google's TPU lack the flexibility needed in the early stages of AI development. AMD's CEO asserts that general-purpose GPUs will remain the majority of the market because developers need the freedom to experiment with new models and algorithms, a capability that cannot be hard-coded into purpose-built silicon.

The narrative of NVIDIA's untouchable dominance is undermined by a critical fact: the world's leading models, including Google's Gemini 3 and Anthropic's Claude 4.5, are primarily trained on Google's TPUs and Amazon's Tranium chips. This proves that viable, high-performance alternatives already exist at the highest level of AI development.